Impeachment Equals Substantive Use
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Evidence1
Example wrong choices
14799_fishingboat_picnic · EVIDENCE · Choice BYes, to impeach Stephen and to prove Paul's involvement in the fraud.
Why it's attractive
Clash axis: scope of use. Splitting fact: the oath. Without the oath, FRE 801(d)(1)(A) is not satisfied, so the substantive half collapses.
Why it's wrong
Clash axis: scope of use. Splitting fact: the oath. Without the oath, FRE 801(d)(1)(A) is not satisfied, so the substantive half collapses.
14799_fishingboat_picnic · EVIDENCE · Choice CNo, because a party cannot impeach that party's own witness.
Why it's attractive
Cut. The old common-law voucher rule is abolished by FRE 607; this answer is a flat misstatement of the current federal rule.
Why it's wrong
Cut. The old common-law voucher rule is abolished by FRE 607; this answer is a flat misstatement of the current federal rule.
14799_fishingboat_picnic · EVIDENCE · Choice DNo, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
Cut. The dispositive element is purpose of offer, not the existence of an exception. Impeachment is a non-hearsay purpose.
Why it's wrong
Cut. The dispositive element is purpose of offer, not the existence of an exception. Impeachment is a non-hearsay purpose.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →